Bulletin Supplement Aug 1969

solutions by critical self-examination and whatever remedial action is needed. In the meanwhile, the Universities obviously can , and will, continue to play their part in shaping the society of the future, as they have always done in the past. So far, I have spoken as a member of this University. May I now change hats and offer you a few thoughts, as a public official, on how academics can best exercise their influence in public affairs. I l l the past, perhaps, the University was expected to be an indirect agent of change. It stood apart from the main stream of national life, and concentrated on the educational task of producing men who woul d be capable of leading society into new and, hopefully, better ways. Nowadays there is a tendency for the don to claim a more active role. Far from leading cloistered lives among their books, academics sit on government committees, act as consultants to industry, give expert advice in the Press and on TV and radio, direct surveys on urgent social problems, and seek in many other ways to make their presence felt outside the academic field. A greater degree of personal involvement is no doubt right, but the nature of this involvement, if it is to be effective, needs thought. Specialised Knowledge Certainly the Universities should be able to provide an available stor e of specialised theoretical knowledge on ai l major subjects. There is much sense in the Universities being the repositories of a common pool of objective, accurate knowledge, on which all who need it can draw. But it is one thing to impart knowledge and rather another to offer advice: and the more modem tendency of gratuitously offering it opens up pitfalls. It is simply that telling another man how to do his job is always a risky business, unless one can really comprehend every facet of his problem. Moreover, offering advice may tend to lead to expressing strictures when that advice is not wholly accepted. This can be even more dangerous. The University specialist does need to be careful to remember that those who seek his co-operation are responsible people also, and are not likely to want to reject his views without reasons which will seem good to them, even if he himself is not altogether in sympathy wit h those reasons. Usually objection arises from practical consideration not appreciated b y the giver of advice. To fail to give full weight to this is liable to lead to an erosion of mutual confidence and esteem. I would suggest then that there is much to be said for the somewhat detached don, willing to impart what he knows and ready to help where he can, but careful not to involve himself too far or too incautiously. This is not an easy role to play. Many people will ask more of him; many— particularly from the mass media—will seek to entice him into no doubt lively but essentially sterile debate; or use him in one way or another for their own ends, unless the don is watchful and curbs the very natural desire of the enthusiast to join into an argument on one side or the other. Contrary Views The kaleidoscopic pattern of practica l policymaking to-day has, inevitably and quite rightly, as one element in the process, a care for public opinion as best it can be distilled from what can be close to a babel of voices airing contrary views. Very many of these views are unavoidably based on half-knowledge, half-truth , tendentious argument or special pleading. But it is counter- productive to join in the chorus: for the voices which finally do most to shape society are those which speak seldom; but when they do speak, speak from authority and carry conviction by their careful avoidance of anything in the nature of doubtful argumentation or appeals to emotion. It is these voices which are most clearly heard above the rest in the places where policy is finally made. Finally, you will notice I did not say shape 'a new society', as does your theme. To say this, conveys something of an assumption that what is new is necessarily good, or that what exists must necessarily be changed. I hope your Workshop will not accept this premise without challenge. Dr. Li, i n his over-complimentary remarks about myself, referred to me as an innovator. I am certainly not averse to trying new methods; but it is an urge I have learnt to suspect in myself, and to hold somewhat in check. — 5 —